Reply to the following student with a scholarly source
Just as the Judeo-Christian system was the most influential on our culture from the industrial revolution until the mid-twentieth century, secular humanism has nearly replaced the ethos that existed during that period. Thus the Judeo-Christian ethical system has nearly disappeared from the public scene due to a systematic implementation by the proponent of secular humanism. Our study this week identified areas with the most influence on individuals as Media, Parents/Upbringing, Religion, Education System, Peer Pressure, Money/Greed (LOU Preso, 2018, slide 2). It is my theory that these areas of life have been slowly invaded by a belief system that is countercultural to Judeo-Christian values and secular humanism inspires that invasion. To understand why there is a complete overturning of these spheres of understanding one must comprehend the vast differences between the Judeo-Christian worldview and the secular humanist worldview. To get to the bottom line; this is a clash between those who believe in the God of the Bible and those who do not.
Simply put, the means of undergirding a belief system is distributed through Media, Parents, Religion, Education System and Peer Pressure and Money/Greed (Material possession). Currently, the secular humanist “religion” is the dominant ideology in the arenas most influencing individuals this is seen in the growing divide between standards and ideas embraced by those having a religious frame for their decision making and those who do not. Studies that show this divide is real and there is a mounting tension because of “a growing cleavage between the religious and the secular can be found as a general trend within contemporary Western cultures where secularization processes have been underway for many decades ” (Wilkins-Laflamme, S., 2016, p. 717-718).
The values that children appropriate are the ones served up to them by Media, Parents, Religion, Education System, Peer Pressure, and Money/Greed. If one ideology or another can infiltrate all of the areas listed, there is little room for any value system that opposes the worldview of a person matriculated through the systems mentioned. Melichar (1983) argues that push-back from parents toward indoctrination, for instance, is wrong-headed because organized push-back is against influences that are non-existent. So, if parents and others identify indoctrination, they must understand that it is not indoctrination. Indoctrination is the methodology that leads to acceptance of the secular humanist “religion” as perfectly normal and non-threatening. The influencers are steeped in the ideology of secular humanism which is undoubtedly one of the most powerful ideologies in directing individuals to dispense with belief in the God of the Bible. Although some believe that there is an overemphasis on the biblically based systems of morality, they do not reckon that the secular humanism as practiced today as had a negative effect on the worldview of many in this country. For instance, the complete acceptance of “science” as the answer to existence has permeated much of the education systems in the nation. This change in philosophical and religious predisposition has begun to impose a rigidity in the culture that rejects any beliefs or acceptance of a Creator as unacceptable in any area of life making secular humanism the “sole philosophical guiding light” (Faria, M. A, 2018, p. 55).
Faria, M. A. Religious morality (and secular humanism) in Western civilization as precursors to medical ethics: A historic perspective.Surgical neurology international, 6, 105. (2015). Accessed November 24, 2018. doi:10.4103/2152-7806.158894.
Liberty University Presentation. Influences of our personal values. BUSI 472-D03 LOU. (2018).
Melichar, D. “A leap of faith: The new right and secular humanism.” The English Journal 72(6) (1983): 55-58. Accessed November 24, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/816235.
Wilkins-Laflamme, S. “Secularization and the wider gap in values and personal religiosity between the religious and nonreligious.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 55(4) (2016):717–736. Accessed November 24, 2018. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.ezproxy.liberty.edu/doi/epdf/10.1111/jssr.12307.